on assumed shared interests, as well as fears of an investment strike. But the negotiation process resulted in vague and ambiguous rules.required that companies “cooperate in the formulation of integrated development plans and… in the implementation of these plans” in mine-affected communities. Such a vague expectation is difficult to enforce.
These outcomes were at least in part due to the lobbying of the mining industry. But the lack of clear and implementable rules was not the only problem.The Mining Charter, as well as a broader international debate about corporate responsibility, expected companies to contribute to public goods and services in areas near their mines. The companies accepted this. In fact, mining companies sought to outdo each other in acting, and being seen, as public development agents.
What’s more, the local state consciously absconded from areas which were expected to be supported by the mining companies. A government representative reportedlylocal officials asking for bigger budgets, “you, you are the children of the mine, whatever your needs are, you go and you ask the mine, don’t come here, we have lots of other communities that don’t have mines that look after them”.
Company managers pointed out that their contributions to public goods and services around the mines were constrained by an absent local state. A senior manager in another company active in the area, “We must not underestimate some of the serious capacity constraints within the municipalities, and the extent to which this constrains even the ability of mining companies to deliver on our own Social and Labour Plan obligations.
United States United States Latest News, United States United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: BDliveSA - 🏆 12. / 63 Read more »
Source: ewnupdates - 🏆 30. / 53 Read more »